Separate Opinions of Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services

7/29/2019 Separate Opinions of Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services

1/14

Separate Opinions

CARPIO, J., concurring:

I concur that the provision "or for three (3) months for every year of theunexpired term, whichever is less" in Section 10, paragraph 5,1of Republic Act(RA) No. 80422is unconstitutional, but on a different ground. The provisionviolates the prohibition against deprivation of property without due process oflaw. It is an invalid exercise of police power.

Section 1, Article III, of the Constitution states that no person shall bedeprived of property without due process of law. Protected propertyincludes the right to work and the right to earn a living. In JMM Promotion and

Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,3the Court held that: HCaEAT

A profession, trade or calling is a property right within themeaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot bedeprived of the right to work and the right to make a livingbecause these rights are property rights, the arbitrary andunwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionablewrong. (Emphasis supplied)

The right to work and the right to earn a living necessarily includes the right to

bargain for better terms in an employment contract and the right to enforcethose terms. If protected property does not include these rights, then the right towork and the right to earn a living would become empty civil liberties theState can deprive persons of their right to work and their right to earn a living bydepriving them of the right to negotiate for better terms and the right to enforcethose terms.

The assailed provision prevents the OFWs from bargaining for payment of morethan three months' salary in case the employer wrongfully terminates theemployment. The law may set a minimum amount that the employee can

recover, but it cannot set a ceiling because this unreasonably curtails theemployee's right to bargain for better terms of employment. The right to bargainfor better terms of employment is a constitutional right that cannot beunreasonably curtailed by the State. Here, no compelling State interest has beenadvanced why the employee's right to bargain should be curtailed. The claimthat that the three-month salary cap provides an incentive to service contractors
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


2/14

and manning agencies is specious because such incentive is at the expense of aprotected and disadvantaged class the OFWs.

The right to property is not absolute the prohibition against deprivation ofproperty is qualified by the phrase "without due process of law". Thus, the State

may deprive persons of property through the exercise of policepower.4However, the deprivation must be done with due process. Substantivedue process requires that the means employed in depriving persons ofproperty must not be unduly oppressive. In Social Justice Society v.

Atienza, Jr.,5the Court held that: ICAcaH

[T]he State. . . may be considered as having properly exercised[its] police power only if the following requisites are met: (1)the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of aparticular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed

are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purposeand not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In short, there mustbe a concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. (Emphasissupplied)

Moreover, the exercise of police power, to be valid, must be reasonable and notrepugnant to the Constitution.6InPhilippine Association of Service Exporters,Inc. v. Drilon,7the Court held that:

Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without its

own limitations. For all its awesome consequences, it may not beexercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, and in that event,it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised, that is, to advance thepublic good. (Emphasis supplied)

The assailed provision is unduly oppressive, unreasonable, andrepugnant to the Constitution. It undermines the mandate of theConstitution to protect the rights of overseas workers and to promote theirwelfare. Section 3, Article XIII, of the Constitution states that the State shall (1)afford full protection to overseas labor, (2) promote full employment and equalityof employment opportunities for all, and (3) guarantee the rights of all workersto security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. Section 18,

Article II, of the Constitution states that, "The State affirms labor as a primarysocial economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote theirwelfare."
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


3/14

The assailed provision also undermines the declared policies of RA No. 8042.Section 2 of RA No. 8042 states that (1) the State shall, at all times, uphold thedignity of Filipino migrant workers; (2) the State shall afford full protection tooverseas labor and promote full employment opportunities for all; (3) theexistence of overseas employment program rests solely on the assurance thatthe dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms of Filipinos shall not, atany time, be compromised or violated; and (4) it is imperative that an effectivemechanism be instituted to ensure that the rights and interest of distressedFilipino migrant workers are adequately protected and safeguarded.

The assailed provision is the reverse of the constitutional mandate and thedeclared policies of RA No. 8042: (1) instead of protecting the rights andpromoting the welfare of OFWs, it unreasonably curtails their freedom to enterinto employment contracts; (2) instead of empowering OFWs, it prevents them

from bargaining for better terms; (3) instead of setting the minimum amountthat OFWs are entitled to in case they are terminated without just, valid orauthorized cause, it provides a ceiling; (4) instead of allowing OFWs who havebeen terminated without just, valid or authorized cause to recover what isrightfully due, it arbitrarily sets the recoverable amount to their three-monthsalary. TAECaD

OFWs belong to a disadvantaged class, are oppressed, and need protection.In Olarte v. Nayona,8the Court held that:

Our overseas workers belong to a disadvantaged class. Most ofthem come from the poorest sector of our society. Their profile showsthey live in suffocating slums, trapped in an environment of crimes.Hardly literate and in ill health, their only hope lies in jobs they find withdifficulty in our country. Their unfortunate circumstance makesthem easy prey to avaricious employers. They will climbmountains, cross the seas, endure slave treatment in foreign lands justto survive. Out of despondence, they will work under sub-humanconditions and accept salaries below the minimum. The least we cando is to protect them in our laws. (Emphasis supplied)

In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.,9the Court held that:

What concerns the Constitution more paramountly is that . . .employment be above all, decent, just, and humane. It is bad enoughthat the country has to send its sons and daughters to strangelands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs athome. Under these circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


4/14


5/14

Republic Act No. 8042 as unconstitutional for violation of the due processclause. AECcTS

BRION, J., concurring:

I concur with the ponencia'sconclusion that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042,or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act (R.A. No. 8042), isunconstitutional insofar as it provides that

In case of termination of overseas employment without just,valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, theworker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placementfee with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salariesfor the unexpired portion of his employment contract or forthree (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,

whichever is less.

My conclusion, however, proceeds from a different reason and constitutionalbasis. I believe that this provision should be struck down for violations of theconstitutional provisions in favor of labor1and of the substantive aspect ofthe due process clause.2Given these bases, I see no necessity in invokingthe equal protection clause. Underlying this restraint in invoking the equalprotection clause is my hesitation to join the ponenciain declaring aclassification as "suspect" and in using the strict scrutiny standard withoutclearly defined parameters on when this approach applies.

I begin by reading the assailed provision Section 10, R.A. No. 8042 in itsconstitutional context. Section 18, Article II of the Constitution declares it a statepolicy to affirm labor as a primary social economic force and to protect the rightsof workers and promote their welfare. This policy is emphatically given more lifeand vitality under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution which reads:

Section 3.The State shall afford full protection to labor, local andoverseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment andequality of employment opportunities for all. EHaCID

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collectivebargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, includingthe right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled tosecurity of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. Theyshall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affectingtheir rights and benefits as may be provided by law.


6/14

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility betweenworkers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes insettling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutualcompliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of productionand the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and toexpansion and growth.

On June 7, 1995, Congress enacted R.A. No. 8042 "to establish a higherstandard of protection and promotion of the welfare of migrantworkers, their families and of overseas Filipinos in distress".3Theexpress policy declarations of R.A. No. 8042 show that its purposes arereiterations of the very same policies enshrined in the Constitution. R.A. No.

8042, among others, recites that:

(b)The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equalityof employment opportunities for all. Towards this end, the State shallprovide adequate and timely social, economic and legal services toFilipino migrant workers.4

xxx xxx xxx

(e)Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal

assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. Inthis regard, it is imperative that an effective mechanism be instituted toensure that the rights and interests of distressed overseas Filipinos, ingeneral, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular, documented orundocumented, are adequately protected and safeguarded.

These declared purposes patently characterize R.A. No. 8042 as a directimplementation of the constitutional objectives on Filipino overseas work so thatit must be read and understood in terms of these policy objectives. Under thisinterpretative guide, any provision in R.A. No. 8042 inimical to the interest of an

overseas Filipino worker (OFW)cannot have any place in the law.

Further examination of the law shows that while it acknowledges that the Stateshall "promote full employment", it states at the same time that "the State doesnot promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth andnational development. The existence of overseas employment program restssolely on the assurance that the dignity and fundamental human rights and


7/14

freedoms of Filipino citizens shall not, at any time, be compromised orviolated."In blunter terms, the overseas employment program exists only forOFW protection.

Having said all these, the law concludes its Declaration of Policies with astatement the lawmakers may have perceived as an exception to the law'spreviously declared policies, by stating "[n]onetheless, the deployment ofFilipino overseas workers, whether land-based or sea-based, by local servicecontractors and manning agencies employing them shall be encouraged.

Appropriate incentives may be extended to them."Thus, in express terms, thelaw recognizes that there can be "incentives" to service contractors and manningagencies in the spirit of encouraging greater deployment efforts. No mention atall, however, was made of incentives to the contractors' and agencies'principals, i.e., the foreign employers in whose behalf the contractors andagencies recruit OFWs. CSaIAc

The matter of money claims the immediate subject of the present case isgoverned by Section 10 of the law. This section grants the National LaborRelations Commission (NLRC)jurisdiction over OFW money claims. On liability formoney claims, the sections states:

SEC. 10.Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision of law to thecontrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear anddecide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint,the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtueof any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseasdeployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and otherforms of damages.

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placementagency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint andseveral. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas

employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. Theperformance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, asprovided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damagesthat may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placementagency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors andpartners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarilyliable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims anddamages.


8/14

Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of theemployment contract and shall not be affected by any substitution,amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of thesaid contract.

Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on moneyclaims inclusive of damages under this section shall be paid within four(4) months from the approval of the settlement by the appropriateauthority.

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid orauthorized cause as defined by law or contract, the worker shall beentitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest attwelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpiredportion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for everyyear of the unexpired term, whichever is less. cDHAES

Under these terms, the law protects the OFW as against the employer andthe recruitment agency in case of illegal termination of service, but limits thisliability to the reimbursement of the placement fee and interest, and thepayment of"his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contractor for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever isless."After earlier declaring the principal/employer and thecontractor/recruitment agency jointly and solidarily liable, the limitation ofliability appears to be a step backward that can only be justified, under theterms of the law, if it is an "appropriate incentive". To be "appropriate", theincentive must necessarily relate to the law's purpose with reasonableexpectation that it would serve this purpose; it must also accrue to itsintended beneficiaries (the recruitment/placement agencies), and not toparties to whom the reason for the grant does not apply.

These considerations bring us to the question can the disputed portion ofSection 10 stand constitutional scrutiny?

I submit that it cannot as it violates the constitutional provisions in favor of labor,

as well as the requirements of substantive due process.

The best indicator of the effect of the disputed portion of Section 10 on OFWscan be seen from the results of the pre-R.A. No. 8042 rulings of this Court thatthe ponenciapainstakingly arranged in tabular form. The ponencia'stable showsthat by our own past rulings, before R.A. No. 8042, all illegal dismissalsmerited the payment of the salaries that the OFWs would have received for theunexpired portion of their contracts.5After R.A. No. 8042, our rulings vary on
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


9/14

the computation of what should be paid to illegally dismissed OFWs, but in allcases the principal's/agency's adjudged liability was for less than the unexpiredportion of the OFW's contract.6

Anyway viewed, the situation of illegally dismissed OFWs changed for

the worse after R.A. No. 8042. In this sense, the disputed portion of Section10 is one that goes against the interests of labor, based on R.A. No. 8042's owndeclared purposes and, more importantly, on constitutional standards. Section10 diminished rather than enhanced the protection the Constitutionenvisions for OFWs. AcSCaI

The more significant violation, however, that the disputed portion of Section 10spawns relates to its character as a police power measure, and its failure to meetthe substantive due process requirements of Article III, Section 1 of theConstitution.

By the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG)own representations, the disputedSection 10 is a police power measure adopted to mitigate the solidary liability ofplacement agencies. It "redounds to the benefit of the migrant workers whosewelfare the government seeks to promote. The survival of legitimate placementagencies helps [assure] the government that migrant workers are properlydeployed and are employed under decent and humane conditions."7Toconstitutionally test the validity of this measure, substantive due process requiresthat there be: (1) a lawful purpose; and (2) lawful means or method to achieve

the lawful purpose.8

I see nothing inherently unconstitutional in providing incentives to local servicecontractors and manning agencies; they are significant stakeholders in theoverseas employment program and providing them with encouragement asR.A. No. 8042 apparently envisions in its Declaration of Policies will ultimatelyredound to the benefit of the OFWs they recruit and deploy for overseas work.The Constitution itself also expressly recognizes "the right of labor to its justshare in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonablereturns on investments, and to expansion and growth."9As entities acting for

the principals/employers in the overseas employment program, therecruitment/manning agencies deserve no less. Viewed from this perspective, thepurpose of encouraging greater efforts at securing work for OFWs cannot but beconstitutionally valid. Thus, the issue before us in considering substantive dueprocess is reduced to whether the means taken to achieve the purpose ofencouraging recruitment efforts (i.e., the incentive granted limiting the
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


10/14

liability of recruitment/manning agencies for illegal dismissals) isreasonable. DAHCaI

The first significant consideration in examining this issue is the question ofliability who is liable when a foreign principal/employer illegally terminates the

services of an OFW? Under Philippine law, the employer, as the contracting partywho violated the terms of the contract, is primarily liable.10In the overseasemployment situation, the protective measures adopted under the law and thePhilippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)rules to protect the OFWin his or her overseas contract best tell us how we regard liability under thiscontract.

First, POEA Rules require, as a condition precedent to an OFW deployment, theexecution of a master contract signed by a foreign principal/employer before itcan be accredited by the POEA as an entity who can source its manpower needsfrom the Philippines under its overseas employment program.11The mastercontract contains the terms and conditions the foreign principal/employer bindsitself to in its employment relationship with the OFWs it willemploy. Second, signed individual contracts of employment between the foreignprincipal/employer or its agent and the OFW, drawn in accordance with themaster contract, are required as well.12Third, the foreign aspects or incidents ofthese contracts are submitted to the Philippine labor attachs for verification atsite.13This is a protective measure to ensure the existence and financialcapability of the foreign principal/employer. Labor attaches verify as well the

individual employment contracts signed by foreign principals/employersoverseas. Fourth, the POEA Rules require the issuance by the foreign principal-employer of a special power of attorney authorizing the recruitment/manningagency to sign for and its behalf, and allowing itself to sue or be sued on theemployment contracts in the Philippines through its authorizedrecruitment/manning agency.14Fifth, R.A. No. 8042 itself and its predecessorlaws have always provided that the liability between the principal and its agent(the recruitment/manning agency) is joint and solidary,15thus ensuring thateither the principal or the agent can be held liable for obligations due toOFWs. Finally, OFWs themselves can sue at the host countries with the

assistance of Philippine embassies and labor offices.16

These measures collectively protect OFWs by ensuring the integrity of theircontracts; by establishing the responsible parties; and by providing themechanisms for their enforcement. In all these, the primary recourse is with theforeign principal employer who has direct and primary responsibility under theemployment contract.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


11/14

Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 affects these well-laid rules and measures, and infact provides a hidden twist affecting the principal/employer's liability. Whileintended as an incentive accruing to recruitment/manning agencies, the law, as

worded, simply limits the OFWs' recovery in wrongful dismissal situations. Thus,it redounds to the benefit of whoever may be liable, including theprincipal/employerthe direct employer primarily liable for the wrongfuldismissal. In this sense, Section 10 read as a grant of incentives torecruitment/manning agencies oversteps what it aims to do by effectivelylimiting what is otherwise the full liability of the foreignprincipals/employers. Section 10, in short, really operates to benefit the wrongparty and allows that party, without justifiable reason, to mitigate its liability forwrongful dismissals. Because of this hidden twist, the limitation of liability under

Section 10 cannot be an "appropriate" incentive, to borrow the term that R.A.No. 8042 itself uses to describe the incentive it envisions under its purposeclause. cHESAD

What worsens the situation is the chosen mode of granting the incentive: insteadof a grant that, to encourage greater efforts at recruitment, is directly related toextra efforts undertaken, the law simply limits their liability for the wrongfuldismissals of already deployed OFWs. This is effectively a legally-imposed partialcondonation of their liability to OFWs, justified solely by the law's intent toencourage greater deployment efforts. Thus, the incentive, from a more practical

and realistic view, is really part of a scheme to sell Filipino overseas labor at abargainfor purposes solely of attracting the market. Ironically, the OSGunabashedly confirmed this view in its Comment when it represented that "[b]ylimiting the liability to three months, Filipino seafarers have better chance ofgetting hired by foreign employees."17

The so-called incentive is rendered particularly odious by its effect on the OFWsthe benefits accruing to the recruitment/manning agencies and their principalsare taken from the pockets of the OFWsto whom the full salaries for theunexpired portion of the contract rightfully belong. Thus, the

principals/employers and the recruitment/manning agencies even profit fromtheir violation of the security of tenure that an employment contract embodies.Conversely, lesser protection is afforded the OFW, not only because of thelessened recovery afforded him or her by operation of law, but also because thissame lessened recovery renders a wrongful dismissal easier and less onerous toundertake; the lesser cost of dismissing a Filipino will always be a consideration aforeign employer will take into account in termination of employment decisions.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


12/14

This reality, unfortunately, is one that we cannot simply wish away with thedisputed Section 10 in place. Thus, this inherently oppressive, arbitrary,confiscatory and inimical provision should be struck down for its conflict with thesubstantive aspect of the constitutional due process guarantee. Specifically, thephrase"for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired terms,whichever is less" in the fifth and final paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. 8042should be declared unconstitutional.

With these conclusions, I see no need to further test the validity of the assailedclause under the equal protection guarantee. My restraint in this regard rests ontwo reasons.

First, I believe that the ponencia'suse of the strict scrutiny standard of review on the premise that the assailed clause established a suspect classification ismisplaced. Second, I do not see the present case as an occasion to furtherexpand the use of the strict scrutiny standard which the Court first expandedin Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 18

A suspect classification is one where distinctions are made based on the mostinvidious bases for classification that violate the most basic human rights, i.e., onthe basis of race, national origin, alien status, religious affiliation, and to acertain extent, sex and sexual orientation.19With a suspect classification, thescrutiny of the classification is raised to its highest level: the ordinarypresumption of constitutionality is reversed and government carries the burden

of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny,the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compellingstate interest; if this is proven, the state must then demonstrate that thelegislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.20ASICDH

In the present case, I do not see the slightest indication that Congress actuallyintended to classify OFWs between and among themselves, and in relationwith local workers when it adopted the disputed portion of Section 10. Thecongressional intent was to merely grant recruitment and manning agencies anincentive and thereby encourage them into greater deployment efforts, although,

as discussed above, the incentive really works for the foreign principals' benefitat the expense of the OFWs.

Even assuming that a classification resulted from the law, the classificationshould not immediately be characterized as a suspect classification that wouldinvite the application of the strict scrutiny standard. The disputed portion ofSection 10 does not, on its face, restrict or curtail the civil and human rights of
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51564?search=gr%3A+%28167614%2A%29#footnotes


13/14

any single group of OFWs. At best, the disputed portion limits the monetaryaward for wrongful termination of employmenta tort situation affecting anOFW's economic interest. This characterization and the unintendedclassificationthat unwittingly results from the incentive scheme under Section 10, to my mind,render a strict scrutiny disproportionate to the circumstances to which it isapplied.

I believe, too, that we should tread lightly in further expanding the concept ofsuspect classification after we have done so in Central Bank,21where we heldthat classifications that result in prejudice to persons accorded special

protection by the Constitution22requires a stricter judicial scrutiny. The useof a suspect classification label cannot depend solely on whether the Constitutionhas accorded special protection to a specified sector. While the Constitutionspecially mentions labor as a sector that needs special protection, the

involvement of or relationship to labor, by itself, cannot automatically trigger asuspect classification and the accompanying strict scrutiny; much should dependon the circumstances of the case, on the impact of the illegal differentialtreatment on the sector involved, on the needed protection, and on the impact ofrecognizing a suspect classification on future situations. In other words, weshould carefully calibrate our moves when faced with an equal protectionsituation so that we do not misappreciatethe essence of what a suspectclassification is, and thereby lessen its jurisprudential impact and value.Reserving this approach to the worst cases of unacceptable classification anddiscrimination highlights the importance of striking at these types of unequal

treatment and is a lesson that will not be lost on all concerned, particularly thelarger public. There is the added reason, too, that the reverse onus that a strictscrutiny brings directly strikes, in the most glaring manner, at the regularity ofthe performance of functions of a co-equal branch of government; inter-government harmony and courtesy demand that we reserve this type oftreatment to the worst violations of the Constitution. EHTIDA

Incidentally, I believe that we can arrive at the same conclusion and similarlystrike down the disputed Section 10 by using the lowest level of scrutiny, therebyrendering the use of the strict scrutiny unnecessary. Given the OSG's positions,

the resulting differential treatment the law fosters between Philippine-basedworkers and OFWs in illegal dismissal situations does not rest on substantialdistinctions that are germane to the purpose of the law. No reasonable basis forclassification exists since the distinctions the OSG pointed out do not justify thedifferent treatment of OFWs and Philippine-based workers, specifically, why oneclass should be excepted from the consequences of illegal termination under theLabor Code, while the other is not.


14/14

To be sure, the difference in work locations and working conditions that the OSGpointed out are not valid grounds for distinctions that should matter in theenforcement of employment contracts. Whether in the Philippines or elsewhere,the integrity of contracts be they labor, commercial or political is azealously guarded value that we in the Philippines should not demean byallowing a breach of OFW contracts easy to undertake. This is true whatevermay be the duration or character of employment; employment contracts,whatever their term and conditions may be subject only to their consistency withthe law, must be respected during the whole contracted term and under theconditions agreed upon.

Significantly, the OSG could not even point to any reason other than theprotection of recruitment agencies and the expansion of the Philippine overseasprogram as justification for the limitation of liability that has effectively

distinguished OFWs from locally-based workers. These reasons, unfortunately,are not on the same plane as protection to labor in our constitutional hierarchyof values. Even RA 8042 repeats that "the State does not promote overseasemployment as a means to sustain economic growth and nationaldevelopment."Under RA 8042's own terms, the overseas employment programexists only for OFW protection. Thus viewed, the expansion of the Philippineoverseas deployment program and the need for incentives to achieve results aresimply not valid reasons to justify a classification, particularly when the incentiveis in the form of oppressive and confiscatory limitation of liability detrimental tolabor. No valid basis for classification thus exists to justify the differential

treatment that resulted from the disputed Section 10.

In light of all these, I vote to strike down the disputed portion of Section 10 ofR.A. No. 8042.

Documents

Separate Opinions of Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services